Saidme wrote on Jul 17^th, 2003 at 1:59am:


What bias? You keep making a claim that the NAS' findings were biased, but you've provided nothing to support that claim except stating that it "could be" biased because of some cooky conspiracy theory that the NAS and DOE were in league together to destroy polygraphy. While I can appreciate such a goal, I don't think the members on the NAS panel are so corrupt that they would produce bogus findings for a major study.

If you know something I don't that supports your claim that the report was biased, then I would be very interesting in hearing what it is. 

Read, skimmed, what's the difference!  Examiner's tend to lose interest as soon as they see the bias involved.  Not really brave, just a good dose of reality.

Saidme wrote on Jul 16^th, 2003 at 3:55pm:


Not many men would be brave enough to admit they condemn a report they haven't actually read. Bravo polygrapher!

I don't know much about Dr Drew.  As I've seen on this website PhD stands for piled high and deeper.  I think that was the way they characterized Mr Gelb.  I haven't read anything on how Drew feels about CQT and I really don't care what he thinks.  I use the technique regularly with excellent results.  So in a nutshell, if Drew has a problem with it then yes, bullshit would be appropriate.
   
Polyscore is a bunch of crap.  Great for interrogations though.

Former APA member.  They really provided nothing of value.

Gotta go back to Cloud city.

Saidme,

Is Dr. Drew Richardson's findings on the CQT bullshit too?

Your still here right?  The mother ship hasn't scooped you up yet has it ?

What about polyscore?  Are you a polyscore man?

Are you a APA guy as well?

You are correct, I just skimmed it.  Bullshit nevertheless.

Saidme,

DoDPI (and DOE) were represented at all of the public meetings held by the NAS's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, and a number of Committee members also visited DoDPI (as well the DOE's test center in Albuquerque and the CIA's polygraph division). Representatives of other federal polygraph programs also attended the Committee's public meetings and participated in the discussions that were held. Your mistaken belief that DoDPI was not consulted suggests that you have not even bothered to read the report (The Polygraph and Lie Detection) that you so casually dismiss as "bullshit."

Saidme wrote on Jul 16^th, 2003 at 3:43am:


I will agree easily that the polygraph is probably awesome at getting confessions out of guilty people. However, as a tool for determining lies from truth, I think it's lack of scientific validity makes it worse than worthless. If you are going to argue that for the polygraph to work well, all it needs to do is get people to confess, then yes, it does work well. But what about those examinees who do not confess, and maintain sincerely that they have not lied during their exam? Without a sound scientific basis to back up the instrument's readings, you cannot conclusively say that they were deceptive.

At best, it is a convincing prop.

Saidme,
Personally, I have a new "Holy Grail" regarding the validity of the polygraph, and it meets the criteria the research used by the NAS does not. It is a real-world test, not a laboratory simulation, and the consequences of being found deceptive were quite real in the minds of the participants.

What is this new "Holy Grail"? It is the ELEVEN people who failed their polygraphs in the Molly Bish investigation. This is no "slap in the face". More like "run over by a Mack truck".

Perhaps the examiner who administered these examinations doesn't have the "interrogation" skills you have

What I'm waiting to hear now is that the DNA evidence doesn't finger ANY of the eleven who failed. I won't stop laughing for a week.

Saidme,

You never answered my questions about Dr. Drew Richardson's findings about the CQT?

Was he wrong too?  
 

Are you a polyscore man?  Or do you use another system?

Saidme,

You write:

Quote:


With regard to the CQT polygraph-assisted interviews that are conducted today you are quite correct...they were nearly worthless before the existence of this site and they are nearly worthless now.  The goal of this site is not to change that which you have traditionallly practiced, but to end it.  This has obviously not yet been accomplished, but stay tuned... 

About time you guys (or gals) came out in force.  You get real sensitive about that coveted holy grail you call the NAS Study.  I can't respond to all of you but s-X-e put a quote from the NAS Study in here that sums it all up:

"The quality of studies varies considerably, but falls far short of what is desirable. Laboratory studies suffer from lack of realism, and in the randomized controlled studies focused on specific incidents using mock crimes, the consequences associated with lying or being judged deceptive almost never mirror the seriousness of these actions in real-world settings in which the polygraph is used. Field studies have major problems with identifying the truth against which test results should be judged. In addition, they suffer from problems associated with heterogeneity and lack of control of extraneous factors and more generally, they have lower quality than could be achieved with careful study design. Moreover, most of the research, in both the laboratory and in the field, does not fully address key potential threats to validity. For these reasons, study results cannot be expected to generalize to practical contexts." 

This statement pretty much sums it up.  You can never conduct a true validity assessment unless you use real cases.  I think I've made this point with the big guy (George).  Once again I will reiterate, I'm not concerned with the scientific validity of polygraph.  I know as an investigative tool it works quite well.  I don't have any study to back me up but I have 20+ years of law enforcement interviews and interrogations to back it up.  All this website does is (in my view) extend the length of the interrogation/interview but in the end we get the same results.

Saidme,
Quote:
At least you qualified your comment See page 324 of the NAS study. You will see that they did in fact contact DoDPI as they sought research materials.
Quote:
Absolutely. The members of the Committee which conducted the study consisted of 5 people in the Psychology/Psychiatry field, 6 in the Statistical, Cognitive and Social Sciences, 1 from the Law field, 1 from the Mathematics field, 1 Systems Engineer, 1 from the Radiology field and 1 person who is a language specialist. Quite a diverse group, and I doubt seriously they would all be sympathetic to the nuclear guys. Well, maybe the mathematician if his field is theoretical math.
Quote:
Absolutely again. But this analogy would only hold water if the NAS study had been conducted by the scientists employed by the DOE, which it was not.

Saidme wrote on Jul 15^th, 2003 at 7:57pm:


The NAS was charged with determining the validity of polygraphy. This requires an objective analysis of all available information. Whether or not the people here, on this board, believe that the polygraph is invalid does not automatically mean that the NAS does, and should not do a comprehensive review of the available evidence provided by both sides. Asking the NAS to conduct their own study is like asking a jury to conduct their own investigation of a crime instead of letting the defense and prosecution present their cases.

Quote:


It was their study. They did the interviews, they reviewed the research, and it was their conclusions. To say that they should have done their own experiments is almost admitting that the information provided in support of polygraphy should not have been accepted as credible. 

Quote:


Why would you need to duplicate the process in order to review the results of someone else's experiment?

Quote:


The executive summary of the NAS' findings state why the studies were flawed.

Quote:


So no, the study was not flawed because it wasn't duplicated. It was flawed because of the reasons quoted above.

Quote:


Andy Ryan, Chief of Research, for the DoDPI made a presentation to the NAS. I believe several people from the DOE spoke as well.

Quote:


While many who fail may have been deceptive, without any scientific validity (which you claim isn't important), you can't say that they failed because they were deceptive. The conclusions drawn by the NAS seem to indicate that an unacceptable number of people still fail while being truthful (more than "a few exceptions"). Deceptive examinees who employ countermeasures may increase their chances of passing as well.

Quote:


Sure, it could have been, but I see no evidence to indicate it was. Since when did "could be" become conclusive evidence to support that kind of claim?

Quote:


If you are assuming that I would immediately find the study flawed simply by virtue of it being conducted by polygraph examiners, then no, that would not be correct. I would have to review their study, their methods, and the support for their conclusions before reaching that decision. As far as bias goes, I would probably be inclined to believe that studies conducted by polygraphers are more likely to be done for the purpose of validating polygraphy rather than determining its validity (whether or not I believe that might be the case however, does not mean it is true). If I were to make such a claim, I would have to support it with my own evidence.

Quote:


Where did I speculate?

Quote:


Actually, they reviewed evidence provided by both sides and provided their own conclusions on it. That is hardly regurgitation. That you want them to start from makes me think maybe you yourself do not have faith in the evidence the polygraph community may have provided. If that is not the case, then why wouldn't it be OK for them to use it?

Saidme,

Are Dr. Drew Richardson's findings bogus too?

Since nothing is 100% , what percent of accuracy would you rate the polygraph at?

How many polygraph's have you given?

s-X-e

You wrote:

"I see no reason to start from scratch when there is already a plethora of information available, supplied from both polygraph proponents and those opposed to polygraphy."

Based on the claims of many on this website, polygraph basically has no shred of validity.  Why would you rely on past information provided by pro-polygraph organizations?  Wouldn't it be more prudent to start from scratch.  If a research team is going to draw conclusions from their study, shouldn't it be their study?  How could they draw conclusions on other researchers information unless they duplicated the process.  I think you guys like to use the term empirical evidence.  In fact I think they (NAS) cited one of the polygraph studies as "flawed."  Was it flawed because they tried to duplicate the study?  Unfortunately that wasn't the case.

If I'm not mistaken, the NAS did not seek any assistance from DODPI.  I'm not 100% on that but I believe that to be the case.  Maybe someone from DODPI could chime in on that.   

Most who fail know the answer.  They were deceptive.   I will concede there are a few exceptions to the rule.  Nothing is 100%. 

Regarding the scientists who conducted the study.  Is it your belief that no way, no how they could be biased?  What if the study were conducted by polygraph examiners?  Would you find it flawed?  Would you believe there could be bias?  Of course you would.

Let's not throw rocks about speculation.  There's enough of that going on from both sides.   

Regarding the study, I put no validity (there's that word again) in their findings.  They didn't do any research.  They regurgitated previously reported information. 

Saidme wrote on Jul 15^th, 2003 at 3:27pm:


Not exactly. I see no reason to start from scratch when there is already a plethora of information available, supplied from both polygraph proponents and those opposed to polygraphy. Again, unless you have a reason for believing the available information on polygraphy is inaccurate, I don't see why it can't be used as a reference.

Also, it seems as if the pro-polygraph community is unwilling to cooperate with any studies that might conclusively invalidate the polygraph. Jerking the NSA around on the CM issue shows that they are more concerned with obscuring the truth than they are with making it known.

Quote:


Of course. 

Quote:


I too would push "this scientific validity crap" if an important job was denied to me because of some "test" that has no scientific basis behind it. Wouldn't you be mad if a potential employer told you, "I can't hire you because my tea leaves tell me you've done drugs in the past"?

I agree that scientific validity usually only becomes important to people after they've failed, but I don't see anything wrong with that. Those who pass have no reason to research polygraphy. It's only those who fail and don't understand why that look for answers. 

Quote:


I have to disagree with your claim that the NAS study was biased simply because "fellow scientists" working at the DOE were upset over having to take polygraphs. It would help if you had any evidence to back up your claim. Right now it sounds as if you're speculating. Second, what about the study do you consider to be inaccurate, and why?

Suethem

I think you're fianlly getting the full picture.  Who told you about the Cloud city?  Did Doc Drew tell you?  Doug's never been to Cloud city.   We may have to polygraph some of our own.  Batman lives in Cloud city.

s-X-e

I'm dismissing as bullshit what you deem research.  If they wanted to do their own independent research then I would imagine that would include conducting their own studies, polygraphs, etc....  Wouldn't you agree?  I don't have anything against scientific validity, I just don't think we need to get hung up on it when it comes to polygraph.  George is pushing this scientific validity crap to further his own cause because his feelings were hurt when he was rejected by the FBI.    Polygraph works and works well.   

Regarding your last comment I'm not sure what you're driving at there.  My point is:  Can fellow scientists conduct an unbiased research study after a bunch of whiners from DOE come crying?  I doubt it and as of this date, they haven't.

Saidme wrote on Jul 15^th, 2003 at 4:40am:


Scientific validity is a fundamental component of any forensic technology. That you can dismiss it as "bullshit" so casually makes me wonder if you would object to your department suddenly relying on coin tosses and magic 8-balls to screen applicants. Why exactly do you hold scientific validity in such low regard?

Quote:


How exactly would you conduct a research project? I don't see anything wrong with reviewing the available evidence and forming a conclusion based on it. Do you have some reason to believe that the research they reviewed was inaccurate? If so, why?

Quote:


....makes me wonder if you have any evidence to support such a claim.

Saidme,

Let me get this straight, and if I am not accurate you (or anyone else) can correct me...

The National Academy of Sciences (all of the scientists and staff who conducted the review) conspired against the greater polygraph community because the polygraphers were picking on the NAS's friends over at the DOE.

...and then the black helicopters, fueled by crack sales from south central, lifted off for the cloud city that only a special few people in the 'comittee' know about...

I suppose that Dr. Drew's conclusions are also part of the conspiracy?  

Does Doug Williams have friends at the DOE too?

Maybe its time for that vacation everybody has been telling you to take...

Suethem

That would be correct.  An excellent technique that works quite well.  Don't give me that bullshit about scientific validity and what not.  You guys rant and rave about the NAS "study".  All they did was read a bunch of material generated over that past 60 years and somehow came up with conclusions.  That's a hell of a research project by our nations scientists.  You would think if they were serious about checking "scientific validity" they would do their own research.  What a farce.  The only reason they came up with the negative conclusions they did was because their buddies (other scientists) over at DOE whined about having to undergo a polygraph examination.  Makes you wonder how valid their little study really was!!!!  Sorry guys, had to get on my soap box.  I get real tired of all the whiners on this website.  In the words of George Bush, bring em on.

Saidme,

Can you provide me another clarification?

Have the majority of the specific incident polygraphs that you have given been of the PLCQT style?

George

Thank you for providing clarification.   

Saidme,

The National Academy of Sciences didn't conduct its own scientific tests of the polygraph, as Suethem's post suggests. Rather, the NAS conducted a review of the existing scientific research on the polygraph. Suethem is correct, however, in noting that the polygraph failed this review. See, The Polygraph and Lie Detection (National Academies Press, 2003).

Anonymous

Congratulations for not only passing your polygraph examination but declining to use CM's.  I am an examiner and yes (unfortunately) people who pass polygraph examinations will walk out scratching their heads.  It's in the past.  Go out and do good work.

Suethem

You wrote:  "The polygraph has been scientifically tested by the National Academy of Sciences" 

Are you certain that is an accurate assessment of the NAS study?